At the Democrats' press conference last week, Democrats paraded Marcelas Owens, 11, in front of a gaggle of cameras to talk about the crisis that could be solved with Obamacare. Marceles' mom died from pulmonary hypertension last year.



I love this quote:

Marcelas stood up and he came up to a United States Senator and he's gone up to the 29th floor of the federal building and he's flown all the way across the country to face this big crew of press people, because he has the courage that his mother left him to remind all of us what this debate is about.

Marcelas flew across the country? How about, Marcelas was flown across the country, by the Democratic machine, to elicit sympathy for a bill that wouldn't have been necessary because Medicaid would've taken care of her? What about the welfare society that is bred from unlimited government handouts?

I have sympathy for the kid. But if health care is a right, then Marcelas will have no incentive to stay with the girl he knocks up, or hold down a job, because he knows Uncle Sam will give his offspring health care and whatever other services they need for the rest of their lives.

Here is an explanation of what the "Slaughter Solution" entails.  By passing the Slaughter rule, House Dems would essentially deem the Senate bill passed, along with the reconciliation bill, without ever having, technically, to have voted on the Senate bill itself.

Aside from the not-small issue of (1) whether the Senate would actually pass the reconciliation bill adopted by the House under the Slaughter rule, and (2) whether that would solve the various problems with the Senate bill anyway (remember, abortion can't be addressed in reconciliation) there's just one simple question left: Who believes it would make a political difference whether a congressman voted for the Senate bill, or simply voted to deem it adopted (along with other provisions that might or might not pass in the Senate)?

Marjorie Dannenfelser notes the conspicuous silence from GOP politicians about the abortion provisions in the health care "reform" bill -- in contrast to the objections raised by a brave Democrat like Bart Stupak.

It seems clear that Republicans have been spooked by a MSM narrative that, in effect, argues that any hint of social conservatism scares off moderates.  No doubt there's also a calculation here that the vast majority of pro-lifers are already Republican -- and so the pols are directing their arguments to independents and moderates, hence the emphasis on the bill's outrageous cost and its damage to American medical care.

But although there's no doubt a right -- and a wrong -- way to talk about social issues, that's no excuse for Republicans.  Surely they can make the point both to pro-choicers (outside of the pro-abortion zealots) and pro-lifers that -- whatever one's views on the morality or legality of abortion -- the government shouldn't be subsidizing it with taxpayer money, as would be the case were the Senate bill to pass.

Tax simplification is a major issue in many quarters of the conservative movement. Taxes are, and should be, regarded as a necessary evil. And now, in tax season, they're at the forefront of everyone's minds. Filling out the necessary IRS forms can be an incredibly painful process. Wouldn't it be nice if everything could fit on one nice, easy, simple and clean form?

Well, yes. But the thing about tax simplification is that it would allow for governments to collect a higher share of taxes from the populace. Ryan Sager has a must-read op-ed describing this conflict.

Dating back to John Stuart Mill’s 1848 Principles of Political Economy, there has been an understanding that a less visible tax system may have a tendency to fuel the growth of government. The less the goose feels the plucking, after all, the more feathers the pluckers can collect.

Government officials know this quite well. In 1942, discussing proposed changes to how the federal government collected taxes at a Senate hearing, treasury official Randolph Paul wondered aloud, regarding income tax withholding, whether “if we cut down the squawking under this method we could raise the individual tax rates?” Withholding was instituted, the squawking was cut down, and taxes indeed have risen as a share of GDP.

Sager goes on to examine the EZ-Pass system and California's ReturnReady program while warning about the possible dangers of tax simplification. While tax simplification is and should be a major issue within the conservative movement, those advocating for it should be prepared for the ability of governments to collect higher revenues, possibly fueling bigger government.

Health care, financial regulation, environmental reform and now education.  President Obama announced his plans today to scrap the George W. Bush-era No Child Left Behind program for national public education.  Using his weekly address to outline plans for education, the president claimed his plan will better prepare students for life after high school and raise standards of teacher proficiency. 

While the nation is wrapped up in the ongoing health care debate, Obama today said he would be sending Congress his proposal and that his budget will include a $1 billion bonus incentive if Congress passes the measure this year.  Politico reports:

Obama’s proposal would toss out the core of the Bush-era law, which calls for across-the-board proficiency from all students in reading and math by 2014, and instead emphasize revamped assessment tools that link teacher evaluations to student progress, and a goal of having students career and college ready upon graduation.

Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, have called the 2014 goal unreasonable, and have said that it led to watered-down standards. Instead, his blueprint calls for a new goal of career and college readiness for all graduating high school students by 2020.

The timing of this announcement interesting, considering Congress is poised to act this next week on an incredibly unpopular health care plan.  This message and its timing suggest the Obama administration is very aware that they are on the losing side of debates taking place at America's kitchen tables these days. 

Stay tuned as details of the president's education proposal emerge.  Obama has already angered his teachers union supporters by backing charter schools and merit pay for teachers. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out among his Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill. 

David Frum, in a series of blog posts regarding Mitt Romney's No Apology, describes and compares Romney's health care reforms in Massachusetts to the Obamacare plan making its way (forcing its way?) through Congress.

The public option has now vanished from the Obama plan. Which means that the federal plan bears a closer family resemblance than ever to Romney’s idea: regulated health insurance exchanges, mandates to buy insurance for those who can afford it, subsidies for those who cannot. Romney’s preference would be to omit the mandate for those who “can demonstrate their ability to pay their own health-care bills.” (176) That would be precious few of us. And he wants to allow states ample leeway to innovate without hindrance by the federal government.

Romney frames the distinction between his preferences and President Obama’s as “free enterprise and consumer-driven markets or government management and regulation.” (193)

It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that these two technocrats have more in common with each other on this issue than either does with his party’s more fervent supporters.

David shares far too much admiration for this so-called "technocrat" approach to health care reform than I, but he's right: Obamacare does bear a striking resemblance to Romneycare.

Admiration for Romneycare is a rare thing, however. While the Massachusetts plan has focused on expanded coverage, both health costs and insurance premiums have risen, outpacing the national average.

Obamacare and Romneycare do share key philosophical similarities. This is something that requires skepticism, not admiration.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reportedly being hospitalized in South Korea after experiencing abdominal pains.  According to a spokesperson, Kissinger's condition has quickly improved and he is expected to leave the hospital Sunday. 

Mr. Kissinger arrived in Seoul on Wednesday.  On Thursday, he delivered a speech at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a private think tank and on Friday, he met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.  He was reportedly scheduled to leave Seoul on Saturday.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy motivational speaker: